Henry III Fine Rolls: Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Bradfield’

Henry remained all this week at Windsor. He had heard that Simon de Montfort, Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, and the bishop of Worcester, Montfort’s old friend, Walter de Cantilupe, had summoned three knights from each county to meet them at St Albans on 21 September to discuss the common affairs of the realm. Their aim manifestly was to rally support for the insurgency, and then perhaps to advance on Windsor itself, not twenty-five miles away. Faced with this threat, on Sunday 11 September, Henry took action. He did not, however, bravely march out of Windsor towards St Albans to confront this usurpation of royal authority, which was what the summons amounted to. Instead, he ordered, by letters, his sheriffs to ensure that that the knights came on 21 September to Windsor instead. There they would take part in peace negotiations between Henry and the nobles. They would see from the results, Henry averred, how he intended nothing save what would make ‘for the honour and common utility of our kingdom’.

There is much that is mysterious about this famous episode. We do not know how the three knights were chosen in the first place, nor indeed whether any came either to St Albans or to Windsor. The rival summonses, however, reveal the political importance of the knights, and mark a stage in the process by which they appeared in parliament. Henry’s assembly indeed could be regarded as a parliament. So much is revealed in a letter, probably written this week, by the justiciar, Philip Basset, to the chancellor, Walter of Merton, a letter which also shows the efforts to ensure that individual barons as well attended the royal rather than the Montfortian assembly. Basset had learnt that Roger de Somery, lord of Dudley in the west midlands, intended to go to St Albans if he did not receive a letter of summons from the king. He, therefore, urged Merton to get the king to write to Somery summoning him to his forthcoming ‘parliament’. Basset added helpfully that Somery was at his manor Berkshire manor of Bradfield. Basset’s plea gives an interesting insight into Henry’s own involvement in affairs. Basset clearly thought the decision had to be made by the king, and that Merton, as chancellor, could not simply write on his own authority.

Philip Basset was clearly at this time not at court, and was presumably trying to uphold the king’s authority in the provinces. Henry, himself, as we have said, had clearly decided not to go out himself to confront the rebellion. There is, however, a sign in this week that he was contemplating a move. On 11 September, the day he wrote to the sheriffs summoning the knights to Windsor, he also ordered repairs to Oxford Castle, Woodstock, and his Northamptonshire houses at King’s Cliffe and Geddington to be ready by Michaelmas. This may indicate that Henry intended to be there at the end of the month.

The fine rolls of this week shed interesting light on the situation. The number of writs purchased to initiate or further the common law legal procedures picked up from the low of the week before. They numbered a respectable thirty-two. It is very noticeable, however, that not one of these came from Berkshire, or from the surrounding counties of Buckinghamshire, Surrey, and Hampshire. The one from Middlesex was cancelled because the purchaser, for an unexplained reason, did not have the writ. It seems highly likely that this reflects the disintegration of royal authority in the home counties.

One pleasure for Henry in these traumatic times was to exercise in Windsor great park. That alone made Windsor a much more congenial a place to stay than the Tower of London. But how secure was the park? The fine rolls show the issue came up this week, perhaps as a result of Henry’s own inspection. On 18 September, the constable of Windsor, was ordered to sell the alder and birch in the park, and spend the resulting money making good the defects in the park’s enclosure.